I mean there is hardly any evidence to support evolution, except for appearances, and likewise for Flat Earth. People saw that the ground looked flat and theorized that the world must be flat, and Darwin saw that animals looked similar and he postulated that they must have come from each other, so appearances led to the formation of both theories. Of course, there are more similarities such as both theories being completely wrong, but I'll stick to the appearance of things being the driving force behind the formation of both theories, to make my case. What ye say, ye sons and daugters of Japeth, Shem, and Ham?

(15th May 2011, 08:20)theVOID Wrote: No retard, Creationism is the "New Flat Earth".

While I don't condone the use of such hurtful language, no it is not the new flat earth theory. Evolution is a proven thing, although we don't have all the fossils to show every single itty bitty change, we do have enough to fill in the gaps. Atleast anyone with a good brain can fill the gaps in. There is also natural selection which acts at an even quicker pace than evolution. Imagine the everyone in the world died besides 10 people and randomly 10 people with 4 arms each. Both types of people fight eachother and the 4 armed people having an advantage kill off the normal people. Boom natural selection chooses the build that is more superior and everyone from this point on will have 4 arms.

Live every day as if already dead, that way you're not disappointed when you are.

15th May 2011, 11:23 (This post was last modified: 15th May 2011, 11:26 by Jörmungandr.)

(15th May 2011, 08:02)rumbuggerylash Wrote: I mean there is hardly any evidence to support evolution, except for appearances, and likewise for Flat Earth. People saw that the ground looked flat and theorized that the world must be flat, and Darwin saw that animals looked similar and he postulated that they must have come from each other, so appearances led to the formation of both theories. Of course, there are more similarities such as both theories being completely wrong, but I'll stick to the appearance of things being the driving force behind the formation of both theories, to make my case. What ye say, ye sons and daugters of Japeth, Shem, and Ham?

Actually, as late as the 19th century, the question of the earth's flatness was not entirely settled. One of the most colorful and well known flat earthers was Samuel Rowbotham (1816–1884) who with his Zetetic Astronomy propounded long and hard for the earth's flatness, and not without some success, and not entirely without evidence. In the famous Bedford Level experiment, Rowbotham sighted a boat as it sailed down river, and the result was that the boat remained higher in view than was predicted by the globe theory. Despite repeating the experiment several times, his claims were largely dismissed until in 1870 a wager was offered in the matter, and Alfred Wallace Russell took up the challenge. It took a court to settle the matter in favor of Wallace. But that wasn't the end of it, as in 1904 the experiment was repeated with a camera using a telephoto lens, and seemed to confirm Rowbotham's earlier claims. The exact causes of the anomalous results are likely due to optical effects the flat earthers did not take into account.

Of course, science has passed flat earthers behind, but it would be slander to accuse them of a theory based on no evidence. The "theory" of the earth's flatness versus the theory that it is a globe was hardly "scientific" in the sense that evolution is a product of advances in the philosophical sciences (remember, until the 18th or 19th century, there was no "science" -- only "natural philosophy") and mathematics. Beliefs about the shape of the globe, as with many matters, was relegated to the province of revealed knowledge, convention, and common sense. It was a different time, with different ideas of what constitute truth and knowledge, and it is disingenuous to compare the "theories" of that age with theories developed out of post renaissance knowledge.

What's remarkable however is that, even if the majority of flat earthers -- especially those equipped with the knowledge of an alternative theory -- based their conclusions on ignorance, as seen, that isn't always the case. Moreover, judging the quality of their arguments is difficult, given the hindsight of modern science, but more importantly given our historical ignorance of both the actual arguments used, and how they compared to standards of knowing and arguments of the time. Most have probably never heard of Samuel Rowbotham and his Zetetic Astronomy, and arguing that those who were skeptics of the globe theory did so without evidence is an argument from silence; the dead flat earthers are powerless to rise from the grave to defend themselves of the charge. (Although if Christ was a flat earther, you might ask him when he returns.)

It is a pleasing irony though, that an argument meant to impugn evolutionary theorists by analogizing their science to flat earther ignorance is itself based on an obvious ignorance of the matter in question. But then, pontificating ex cathedra about matters you know nothing about is to be expected of buggers like you.

15th May 2011, 11:26 (This post was last modified: 15th May 2011, 11:28 by Gawdzilla.)

(15th May 2011, 09:32)Zen Badger Wrote: No, because Ken Ham is so obviously the missing link between apes and Humanity.

On behalf of apes everywhere I am mortally insulted.

(15th May 2011, 09:26)JohnDG Wrote:

(15th May 2011, 08:20)theVOID Wrote: No retard, Creationism is the "New Flat Earth".

While I don't condone the use of such hurtful language, no it is not the new flat earth theory. Evolution is a proven thing, although we don't have all the fossils to show every single itty bitty change, we do have enough to fill in the gaps. Atleast anyone with a good brain can fill the gaps in. There is also natural selection which acts at an even quicker pace than evolution. Imagine the everyone in the world died besides 10 people and randomly 10 people with 4 arms each. Both types of people fight eachother and the 4 armed people having an advantage kill off the normal people. Boom natural selection chooses the build that is more superior and everyone from this point on will have 4 arms.

As we learn more and more about how evolution works, fossils become less and less important. They were useful in confirming or disproving ideas about evolution, but now most of evolutionary biology is not concerned with fossils at all.

@ Wosombi- fucking respamming bitch.... trolls like that make my fingers hurt. Lesson, don't come back after we already have your IP dick.

"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post

"A lot of people are unwilling to acknowledge anything that contradicts their worldview. So telling them that it's false doesn't necessarily slow them down. That's how urban legends get started for the most case. Like the woman who supposedly put her poodle in the microwave to dry it off. And it exploded." David Mikkelson (snopes)